Savannah’s port and the regulatory problem
If you missed George Will’s latest column — written from the site of the next GOP primary, but about the question of deepening Southeastern ports to handle the larger container ships that will begin coming through the larger Panama Canal within the next several years — I draw your attention to this bit citing the head of the South Carolina State Ports Authority, Jim Newsome:
Newsome says the study for deepening Savannah’s harbor was made in 1999. It is 2012, and studies for the environmental impact statement are not finished. When they are, the project will take five years to construct. “But before that,” he says laconically, “they’re going to be sued by groups concerned about the environmental impact.” A Newsome axiom — that institutions become risk-averse as they get challenged — is increasingly pertinent as America changes from a nation that celebrated getting things done to a nation that celebrates people and groups who prevent things from being done.
Writing at Power Line, Steven Hayward echoes the point:
Take the Keystone pipeline as an example. The pipeline is likely to be approved eventually, but only after more years of review and litigation. Certainly measures will need to be taken to reduce the environmental risks of the pipeline, but is there any safety measure that we will eventually impose that we didn’t recognize in the first six months of the review process? It’s not like we’ve never built a pipeline before, or learned from previous pipeline accidents (like the one in Montana last summer). Are there really any potential environmental impacts of deepening a harbor … by five feet that require six to ten years of review and litigation, and a three-thousand page Environmental Impact Statement? …
What needs to be done? The regulatory review process ought to have a short deadline. Agency review should be completed within six or nine months, with a presumption in favor of granting permission unless an agency can delineate a substantively new problem based on precedents from previous similar projects …. Standing to sue to block projects should be tightened, and the threshold for hearing such suits made much more restrictive. And how about requiring that all Environmental Impact Statements be no longer than 200 pages? I’m sure all the environmental lawyers and consultants who charge by the hour and make a bundle doing these multi-volume EIRs that no one reads will howl, but if the Supreme Court can limit briefs to 50 pages on matters of high constitutional importance, why can’t our regulatory process not emulate a standard of brevity that emphasizes the essential over the frivolous and tedious?
I’d venture to guess a majority of conservative voters, and perhaps a majority of all voters, would approve of such changes, which can hardly be described truthfully as deregulation. They might be better termed a decluttering of regulation.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
89 comments Add your comment
Puck
January 16th, 2012
12:49 pm
I wonder how many supporters of the Keystone Pipeline will have it running through their towns and neighborhoods. It is amazing how often environmentalists get blamed when it is really the NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) who are at fault.
Jefferson
January 16th, 2012
12:55 pm
George Purdue stand to enrich himself if this goes through.
Iconoclast
January 16th, 2012
1:21 pm
Instead of treating the EIS like a ball and chain, consider for a moment that Congress and a Republican president ratified the very National Environmental Policy Act that enables a demand for quality-control in all undertaking that require federal fund or permits. Otherwise, the buildings lining Savannah’s iconic River Street may slip into the void created by the deepened channel and the citizens and industries of Port Wentworth would have to contend with the very-real threat of the channel conveying sea water into its municipal fresh-water intakes on the river. What good is a boom for Georgia’s near-term economic activity, when existing investment and commerce is the casualty of corporate (not public) access to the public waterways. A deeper shipping channel creates jobs and commerce through a public subsidy of the routes used by foreign cargo ships owned and operated by foreign corporations. This is the sort of Public-Private initiative that has all the hallmarks of trickle-down benefits via corporate welfare.
DeborahinAthens
January 16th, 2012
1:23 pm
And in all those years the Republicans ruled the roost, so what’s your point. This country is frozen because of the fear of risk and litigation. If the government immediately removed all impediments to the port and the pipeline and the polluting agri-businesses, there would still be this immobility because no one wants to risk being sued. The Repugs, led byDubya the Dumb promised tort reform. Then, they go caught up in more important things like Trri Schiavo and same sex marriage.
M. Romney
January 16th, 2012
1:27 pm
“…..is there any safety measure that we will eventually impose that we didn’t recognize in the first six months of the review process?”
Not sure. Perhaps we should ask the BP Deepwater Horizon folks.
Dennis
January 16th, 2012
1:46 pm
Neither Jim Newsom and Steven Hayward, nor George Will, would approve of this deeping of the shipping channel if it might endanger their backyards and their fresh water.
All these guys can understand of the need for environmental regulations is the slow down in making a faster buck.
Somali Republican
January 16th, 2012
1:47 pm
We Hijack the new big boats heading for Georgia. It’ great to have free market with no rules on our business.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
1:51 pm
No question these sorts of things have gotten out of hand and “decluttering” is long past due. The thing that really needs to happen first is a “reimagining”. Just streamlining what is in place is not enough. Like any other business processes regulatory processes that were implemented 20-30-40 years ago are simply not up to the task in today’s world.
The other point I would make is that none of that means we don’t need regulation. As we proved to ourselves in the recent financial meltdown we do.
Hillbilly D
January 16th, 2012
1:57 pm
Perhaps the regulatory process does need some tweaking but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
td
January 16th, 2012
2:20 pm
JDW
January 16th, 2012
1:51 pm
“The other point I would make is that none of that means we don’t need regulation. As we proved to ourselves in the recent financial meltdown we do.”
This is a myth. We had plenty of regulation the problem was the Community reinvestment act and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd would not the executive branch enforce the regulations on the books. I will also put GWB in this group for his first term but not for the second.
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
2:43 pm
Savannah is one of Georgia’s most beautiful cities. The river lapping gently on the marshy shores with the fingers of Spanish moss clinging lovingly on stout oak trees near old brick buildings and shady streets with historic patrician homes—all cared for with love. It is a grand place.
But to think, THIRTEEN YEARS to make an environmental report about dredging the river!!! What are they writing? Believe It or Not’s longest report??
Sure, we want to be careful and do it right but not wait until the river runs dry.
Do this dredging right, environmentally and otherwise, to help the economics of this fine city but JUST DO IT.
There, I feel better. I think I’ll take a trip to Savannah and get a whiff of that spicy marsh smell of the coast. It’s a perfume I love.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
3:10 pm
@TD…”We had plenty of regulation the problem was the Community reinvestment act ”
Then maybe you could explain how The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission erred in their conclusions…
“The Commission concluded that “the crisis was avoidable and was caused by:
Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages;
Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk;
An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis;
Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“
http: //fcic.law.stanford.edu/report
BTW, your position was expressed in a dissent by Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute. He claimed that the crisis was caused by government affordable housing policies rather than market forces. However, Wallison’s views (and yours) have not been supported by subsequent detailed analyses of mortgage market data.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1924831
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
3:11 pm
Savannah is one of Georgia’s most beautiful cities. The river rolls gently by the green marshy shores where Spanish moss clings to gnarled oak trees and old brick buiilldings stand tall besides historic patrician homes all gently breathing Southern hospitality and loving care. It must be cherished!
But to take THIRTEEN YEARS to write an environmental study of river dredging there is astounding! What are these study people writing? A new volume for Believe it or Not? Do they expect to live to see the finish?
Let us get this environmental report and do what is best for the economy and the loveliness of Savannah. Let’s do it!!!
Now I feel like making a trip to Savannah and inhaling the lovely perfume of the marshes, that spicy unforgetable air of the coast. Oh yes! Wonderful..
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 16th, 2012
3:12 pm
I will summarize the “conservative” comments for you :
This – and any other problem you can find or even imagine – is all Obama’s fault.
Road Scholar
January 16th, 2012
3:17 pm
” with a presumption in favor of granting permission …”
“.. And how about requiring that all Environmental Impact Statements be no longer than 200 pages? ”
Are we stacking the deck? Ready! Shoot! Aim?!
What happens when we get to page 200? Another volume? Just stop?
I share your displeasure with environmental reports having worked in a field for almost 40 years where one was needed for either Federal or state work, but to place a page/time limit , regardless of the projects’ length or size or impacts? Don’t get me wrong.. having done projects with historical, and/or wetland, and /or public involvement, and/or noise, and/or air quality impacts, the correct analysis and data gathering must be done. But sometimes the enviro groups/regulators act as if a project is a totally different, new endeavor never before undertaken.
Yes it is confounding to those not affected, but Kyle, let me move your family to a lovely home next to a pumping station. How does that work for you? If you do not like that we can throw in a few overhead power lines. Besides for many, it is not NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard for the rookies) but in many locations it is now BANANAS (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)!
Besides what are those judges going to spend their time at if Newtie gets his way of intimidating….er…ah..calling judges on the carpet for rulings some do not agree with?
Linda
January 16th, 2012
3:20 pm
JDW@3:10,There’s nothing like a little lying by omission. What you failed to mention when you specifically stated “the commission” was that “the commission” could not agree. You quoted from the Democrats ON the commission & omitted the quotes from the Republicans ON the commission.
The Republicans separate report clearly placed the blame on the fed. govt.’ s meddling in the housing market & the use of Fannie & Freddie to promote the RIGHT, not the privilege, of home ownership.
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Financial-Crisis-Primer.pdf
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
3:21 pm
Technical problems here.
@@
January 16th, 2012
3:26 pm
There are two kinds of environmentalists…those who take a balanced approach (considering the impact to mankind)…and the radical activists who’ve been led to believe they know all there is to know.
The “know-it-alls” need to be eradicated.
Road Scholar
January 16th, 2012
3:26 pm
JDW: Well done! In addition, we need the regulators to do their jobs better. There has been staffing cuts by Bush and Obama the result of being a “cowboy” and the cutbacks on funding, if you haven’t noticed.The middle and upper managers in this country are not doing their jobs in this or other areas to identify those who are not doing their jobs, or who take undue chances affecting others. Staffing in thses areas need to be increased.
td, would you like to become the food taster for Romney? The rest of the American people?
Road Scholar
January 16th, 2012
3:34 pm
Linda: I thought it was all President Obama’s fault!
There have been subsequent reports by others not clouded by their politics which stated that fault lies with the investment industry. But still many say that “Barney Frank” “FORCED” them to make the loans. I contend they were not good businessmen to begin with and then they got greedy!
Poor analogy coming: Barney says for you to point a gun to your head and pull the trigger….what are you going to do? (Shooting a liberal is not the answer. You are all by yourself to implement the outcome.)
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
3:37 pm
Savannh is one of Georgia’s most beautiful cities. The river flows gently along the green marshes near the old brick buildings lining the shore and rising next to gnarled oaks sweetly hung with Spanish moss near historic patrician homes tendered with loving care and gentle politeness of Southern hospitality.
So they wish to dredge the river for the big boats and maintain Savannah’s maritime economy. Butttttttt…the environmental report is now taking over thirteen years! THIRTEEN YEARS! Unbelievable!
What are they writing? A new book for Ripley’s Believe it or Not?
Let us hope that this report will come soon and Savannah moves forward safely with an even better economy.
Ohhhh, this makes me want to visit Savannah and slowly inhale that soothing smell of the marsh, the perfume of the Southern coast. Just wonderful!!
Michael H. Smith
January 16th, 2012
3:49 pm
If the regulators had done their jobs, even after being TOLD not once but twice about Bernie Madoff running a ponzi scam, then maybe those few and it is a very few REGULATIONS that might actually serve some good just purpose.
We need better regulators and better regulations but we don’t need more of them in either case.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
3:55 pm
Road@3:34, If you want to blame it on Obama, go right ahead.
Obama appointed a Financial Inquiry Commission. They could not agree. JDW quoted from the Democratic members & referenced one Republican who disagreed with them, but he failed to even mention the third report published by 3 Republicans who also disagreed, the most straight-forward report of all.
There will be opinions written about the Great Recession for decades. This has nothing to do with the Obama-appointed Financial Inquiry Commission & their THREE separate reports.
JF McNamara
January 16th, 2012
4:01 pm
If the Keystone Pipeline and deepening the Savannah port were deathly important, they would get done quickly. In the grand scheme of things, they aren’t, and they need to be vetted.
Advocates simply want them to pass quickly, so that they can begin to make their money. If they were going to run an oil pipeline in my backyard, I would surely want to make sure it was the right thing to do, and not be limited by some arbitrary time limit.
td
January 16th, 2012
4:04 pm
Road Scholar
January 16th, 2012
3:26 pm
JDW: Well done! In addition, we need the regulators to do their jobs better. There has been staffing cuts by Bush and Obama the result of being a “cowboy” and the cutbacks on funding,
Where is the proof that there has been actual cuts. Where is that shown in the budget? Nothing, besides the military, has been actually cut in the Federal budget since Reagan.
Michael H. Smith
January 16th, 2012
4:04 pm
Linda@3:55 pm Fact is we both know the first sub-prime (fraudulent) loan was made in 1993 when Bill Clinton was President. If you legalize fraud which is exactly what was done, no amount of regulation will do any good.
But here a better question to answer that goes all the way back to FDR… Where in the Constitution was the federal government granted power to enter into the private sector housing market. Can’t find it anywhere in the enumerated powers?
We need the federal government removed entirely from the housing sector. HUD, Fannie and Freddie etc.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
4:15 pm
Michael@4:04, Fact is that the New York Times PREDICTED the crisis in 1999.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Where in the constitution does it give the fed. govt. the authority to do HALF of the activities it does?
Progressives HATE both the constitution & the Declaration of Independence but want to expand the scope & size of the fed. govt.
Michael H. Smith
January 16th, 2012
4:18 pm
“Progressives HATE both the constitution & the Declaration of Independence but want to expand the scope & size of the fed. govt.”
Spot on! Very well said.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
4:37 pm
Michael, Liberals accuse conservatives of hating the govt. There are SO wrong. Conservatives love the govt. Conservatives love the constitution & it was the constitution that created the fed. govt. in the first place. Conservatives also love the state governments.
The real difference is that liberals want to expand the scope & size of the fed. govt. & conservatives want to take away functions of the fed. govt., eliminate some of them altogether & give some of them back to the states where they belong.
This is where it becomes interesting. Progressives love big govt., the more, the better, but they do not like THIS govt. nor THIS economy.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
4:45 pm
@Linda…”There’s nothing like a little lying by omission. What you failed to mention when you specifically stated “the commission” was that “the commission” could not agree. ”
I stated the CONCLUSIONS of the report that were approved by the majority and also noted the SPECIFIC point of dissent in question which upon review of the evidence has been further discounted.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
4:52 pm
@TD…”Where is the proof that there has been actual cuts. Where is that shown in the budget? Nothing, besides the military, has been actually cut in the Federal budget since Reagan.”
You really should actually read before spouting.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Linda
January 16th, 2012
5:09 pm
JDW@4:45, You failed to mention that “the majority” of the appointees to the commission by Obama were Democrats & that the CONCLUSIONS you referred to were the Democrats’ conclusions. You failed to mention that ALL the Republicans disagreed. You only referenced Wallison & omitted the other 3. I disagree that Wallison’s view has been discredited. It certainly was not discredited by your cite. To be fair, we can all read it.
http://www.aei.org/files/2011/01/26/Wallisondissent.pdf
The question is why would Obama even bother to appoint this commission & sign the Dodd-Frank Act without knowing the conclusions of ALL members as to what happened & how to avoid it in the future.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
5:14 pm
@Linda…I see your critical thinking skills have not improved…enjoy your little fantasy world.
Jefferson
January 16th, 2012
5:15 pm
The myths are myths.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
5:16 pm
JDW@4:52, There’s nothing like referencing the White House to support your claim in cuts. TD is only “spouting” the truth.
markie mark
January 16th, 2012
5:20 pm
JDW – instead of wading thru the budget links you provided, may I ask a simple question or two…does this budget link take into account baseline budgeting? or are you one of those people who think that if Congress has an automatic increase of 9%, and that is reduced to a 6% increase, in your world is that a 6% increase or a 3% reduction in costs?
ragnar danneskjold
January 16th, 2012
5:36 pm
The Ragnar solution is simple – eliminate the EPA’s power to issue fines and similar economic fatwas, and make it nothing more than an advisory agency for benefit of the states.
markie mark
January 16th, 2012
5:41 pm
well, after a 25 minute wait, I tend to believe he falls on the 3% reduction side of the equation…
Inside Out
January 16th, 2012
6:02 pm
Damn….Can’t we go one day with the the ” We love the Constitution, You hate America” bunch jumoping in with their blind party line Bu**SH**???? You are no more patriotic than the next guy….Give it a break and lets have a civil conversation about real solutions that are of benefit to all of us…
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
6:02 pm
Ragnar,
Good comment. Make the EPA an advistory committee only for the states. That’s it. Cut the size of the FEDS.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
6:04 pm
Lock the front door to the EPA & throw the key into the Savannah harbor. If it’s found during construction, drop it from a drone over Iran.
Dusty
January 16th, 2012
6:17 pm
Well, we really have not answered the seemingly eternal question.
I hope Hamlet doesn’t mind if I paraphrase him. To dredge or not to dredge? That is the question (and has been for 13 years).
Let us hope we live long enough to know the answer.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 16th, 2012
6:46 pm
When the government is paying for your gasoline, kickbacks from Big Banking is heating your home and recycled union dues are paying for your long distance travel, why would you care about what our abundant energy supply costs the average hard working American?
And plus, you got your envirohysteria that you need to cling to.
The nerve of these little people, they can just shut up and go on welfare, right?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 16th, 2012
6:50 pm
I’m a little behind on blog time, but I noticed that another lib dropped out of the Republican presidential race.
Will Huntsman now become obozos secretary of surrender?
Disgusted
January 16th, 2012
6:53 pm
Ah, yes. Let’s make the EPA an advisory committee to people like Nathan Deal, who would take his profit if it meant depriving half the state of potable water. Thank you very much, but I prefer my water without the taste-enhancing addition of arsenic, solenium, and other flavorful ingredients. And I’ll trust the EPA much more than I’ll trust the capitalistic system. You see, I don’t want another Love Canal. Some of us are old enough to remember that little debacle.
Real Athens
January 16th, 2012
7:03 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency was created by the “real” GOP — the party of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Nixon.
killerj
January 16th, 2012
7:14 pm
Key Point:”Will be approved anyway”,Money talk,s s@#t walks so the story goes just like our politics in this country,what,s the point when big bucks are on the line?Just another way to extort the tax payers in this land by claiming what,s better for you and me.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
7:30 pm
Disgusted@6:53, So, how are you going to get around this capitalistic system?
Disgusted
January 16th, 2012
7:54 pm
Disgusted@6:53, So, how are you going to get around this capitalistic system?
You aren’t. Your only hope is to vote into office somebody who takes the state of the environment more seriously than the desire to make a few bucks, regardless of the health consequences to millions. And that’s at the heart of the “too many regulations” issue. Believe me, there are millions of people—including some on this blog—who would risk the Gulf of Mexico’s becoming a giant oil impoundment if doing so meant that money was to be made.
Rafe Hollister
January 16th, 2012
7:57 pm
When a builder wants to build a house, he first gets a permit and then he reads the local building codes and attempts to comply with applicable codes. Yes, there are frictions with local governments, but by and large, if the house meets code, it is quickly built and sold (prior to Obama).
Why then do we not have codes established for dredging, pipeline building, and wetland destruction. Establish a process for desenters to voice there opinion and give the permit processors a short amount of time to deliberate. Once permitted the developer only has to meet code. Beats the heck out of the current process of an enviromental study and endless debate and court proceedings.
The cities of Washington, DC, New York, New Orleans, and Miami probably could not be built today under the current enviromental wacky rules. Eisenhowers Interstate Hwy System would take hundreds of years to debate every river crossing. We wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the world, go figure.
Rafe Hollister
January 16th, 2012
8:10 pm
Disgusted
It is not greed; it is called risk management. There is a whole new science involved. We take an assesment of the likelyhood of catastrophe and the benefits of the project being successful. You weigh one against the other. If the likeylood of things going poorly is that at most 10 volunteers may become seriously ill or die and the benefit of success is that cancer is eradicated throughout the world, what do you do.
You certainly do not sit around and think of everything that can go wrong with a project and predict a failure, without considering the benefits of success. Nothing is ever accomplished with this attitude, which is the attitude of most enviromental wackos.
Risk Managment is an effort to balance the risk and the benefits. Unfortunately most Americans tend to be risk averse, which is why we have many of the problems we have.
Linda
January 16th, 2012
8:19 pm
Disgusted@7:54, Rather than “risk the Gulf of Mexico’s becoming a giant oil impoundment,” why not “vote into office somebody who” would approve drilling on land, such as Alaska, & lift both the congressional & presidential bans on drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf in waters that are not so deep, that is, more manageable & less risky, along states that are clamoring for drilling rights?
JDW
January 16th, 2012
9:12 pm
@Markie Mark…first off you need to work on your attention span it is lacking. Second, the point of the link was to encourage TD to do some research before spouting complete falsehoods.
TD stated in the post in question “Nothing, besides the military, has been actually cut in the Federal budget since Reagan”
That statement is a simple falsehood. The Federal Budget is made up of 20 sections or subtotals if you will. That means that during Reagan’s 8 budgets there were 160 opportunities to spend less in one of those area’s than in the year prior and that happened 48 times.
Now for the falsehood part….
…Bush 1 did it 14 times
….Clinton equaled Reagan’s 48 times
…Duhbya did it 37 times
….and Obama, using the White House projections through 2016 which is only 7 budget years is slated to do it 65 times.
So had TD done even the most basic research he would have known his statement was false prior to spouting…which was the point.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
9:14 pm
O’ further to the point, the only President in that time frame to actually submit a budget that cut total spending year to year…Obama in 2010 and 2012.
Disgusted
January 16th, 2012
9:21 pm
Rather than “risk the Gulf of Mexico’s becoming a giant oil impoundment,” why not “vote into office somebody who” would approve drilling on land, such as Alaska, & lift both the congressional & presidential bans on drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf in waters that are not so deep, that is, more manageable & less risky, along states that are clamoring for drilling rights?
Because such drilling wouldn’t increase America’s oil supply one iota, Linda. You seem to think that we can become energy-independent by drilling more in American territory and waters. Think again. Oil is a world commodity. It is sold on the world’s open market to the highest bidder. I’m uninterested in exhausting our own pathetically small share of the world’s oil reserves in order to make a few executives and some shareholders wealthy, along with giving Japan and China shorter routes to meet their oil needs.. And I can pretty well bet that you wouldn’t be interested in any kind of law that required oil found in American territories to be kept here.
In short, your argument for more drilling in America is a giant fail. The consequences would be even more dependence on overseas supplies in the long run. Moreover, it wouldn’t decrease fuel prices by even a penny, and we would be put in an even more perilous situation if overseas supplies were cut off and we had exhausted our own reserves.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 16th, 2012
9:30 pm
The simple-minded cons here always come up with simpleton “solutions”.
Half-wit twits all.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 16th, 2012
9:41 pm
The average Occupy Wall Street protest did more damage to the environment than any oil pipeline ever will but since liberals are easily frightened and confused, they whine and moan, much like any other empty headed sissy.
Unfortunately, the rest of us, decent folk all, are left to hope they don’t urinate or defecate on us in their simple minded rage.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 16th, 2012
10:09 pm
Curly, you cons love “trickle down”.
And santorum. Disgusting!
Rafe Hollister
January 16th, 2012
10:10 pm
Disgusted
Your argument was that adding billions of US oil to the world market will not impact prices. That makes no sense and assuming you are right, we still have added tens to hundreds of thousands of jobs exploring, drilling, shipping, refining that oil.
How do you know we have a miniscule amount of oil? When the Horizon rig blew up, the “experts” were absolutely amazed at the pressure of that well and the amount of oil leaking out. Whoda thunk it after years of the naysayers chanting there is no substantial amount of oil off shore. As the ole saying goes, can’t never could.
Rafe Hollister
January 16th, 2012
10:12 pm
Physics would indicate trickle down works. Trickle up, impossible.
JDW
January 16th, 2012
10:23 pm
@Rafe…”Physics would indicate trickle down works.”
When talking rocks you are absolutely correct…economics not so much.
td
January 16th, 2012
10:49 pm
JDW
January 16th, 2012
9:12 pm
You can not consider it a cut when you decrease an expected increase. This is called government accounting and if the private sector did it then they would be sent to jail (ever hear of Enron).
Again Military has had actual cuts. The “peace dividend” is how Clinton balanced the budget.
JDW
January 17th, 2012
6:38 am
@TD…you are not listening…when you spend less in this year than you did in the last that is a cut. If you would actually look at the data once in a while instead of repeating rumors you would be correct more often.
@@
January 17th, 2012
7:07 am
Well…it’s often been said “The details are in the devil.” and Newt’s got the details down.
schnirt
Newt and Santorum delivered.
Romney stutters and stammers.
Paul is plagued by hysteria.
Perry is…well…perilously predictable.
Bob
January 17th, 2012
7:47 am
The fact of the matter is that this country built projects like the Hoover Dam prior to the current mess. We will never see a project like that again because some group will find some judge to block it.
independent thinker
January 17th, 2012
8:13 am
Display of right wing ignorance: “The Environmental Protection Agency was created by the “real” GOP — the party of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Nixon.”
Nixon created it to buy moderate votes and cover up his administration’s failures. Roosevelt and Eisenhower had zero to do with it.
The number of unfunded mandates creating bloated buracricies created by GOP presidents is endless. Look at No Child Left Behind created by George W. as another example. A total waste.
And of course Romney lies and says the buracracy increased under Obama. Most of that was in defense, VA hospitals immigration and homeland security.
nelson
January 17th, 2012
8:19 am
“Government by Litigation”. When free government becomes too perplexing and futile , people turn to dictatorship. It is the simplest form of government.The legal profession can scarcely boast of its popularity. Some advocate that that the law schools should be paid for not producing lawyers. It takes good lawyers to kill great measures for the public betterment. Those were all quotes by Supreme Court Justice Jackson speaking at the NYS Bar Association in 1937.
Litiagation would tie up building a deep water port at Savannah for years and years.
godless heathen
January 17th, 2012
8:27 am
As one who has worked with the State and Federal Regulatory agencies for over 25 years, I can assure you that the system is broken. The “meat” of one of these EIS’s could easily be presented in 200 pages. Much of the work is done by contractors and what I’ve seen of many of the “environmental” reports, they must charge by the pounds of paper produced. They reproduce manuals, previous studies, research documents, and regulations and include them in the reports when they could merely be referenced. Each EIS is like starting over at the beginning of time.
The people that work at the regulatory agencies are good people and I am friends with many of them but they are hamstrung by the litigious nature of our society, the timidity of managers, layers of bureaucratic redundancy, and spineless lawmakers.
Protection of the environment is not the top priority in Environmental Protection. Protection of one’s backside is, and as a result, the environment and the economy suffers.
I know of an issue under review by a regulatory agency, where a disaster could occur that would actually immediately kill a large number of people, (as opposed to as issue like if contaminated water cause cancer if ingested over a lifetime), and the issue has been under review by the agency since the 1980s.
Serious reform needs happen and the first step is to make it more difficult to file lawsuits, because the fear of lawsuits has paralyzed the system.
independent thinker
January 17th, 2012
8:42 am
How many environmental lawsuits did it take for Atlanta to finally stop polluting streams and rivers??
St Simons - we're on Island time
January 17th, 2012
9:11 am
yes, praying for ‘no environmental impact’ is soooo much better.
you pompous asses can stick pins in voodoo dolls & pray for crap
all you want up there, but the people that live here want to see
the study & let science determine whether our kids are safe.
Intown
January 17th, 2012
9:58 am
Simple minds are blind to complex facts, and scientific uncertainties and thus, love deregulation.
retired early
January 17th, 2012
10:08 am
The previous deepening of the Savannah River several decades ago caused a severe loss of freshwater marsh. It also DESTROYED the best striped bass fishery on the Atlantic coast. The CEO of the company hired for the current deepening impact study is opposed to further deepening. The Corp of Engineers own study states that the “Port of Savannah will continue to grow even without further deepening, just at a more “moderate pace”. Not all of these future are going to be “mega ships”. there will still be plenty of smaller ones the Savannah Port can accommodate. The Savannah port. remember, is 20 miles from the ocean. Let the ports with more environmentally doable sites handle these “mega ships”.
Savannah will do just fine without them. One other thing…..if our freshwater aquifer if infiltrated with salt water…which is one major concern. Who will buy these uninhabitable homes on the coast.
Jefferson
January 17th, 2012
10:19 am
Ga does not need this, move on.
BW
January 17th, 2012
10:49 am
Unfortunately certain people don’t understand decluttering vs deregulation…all regs should be periodically reviewed by department to allow approval as quickly as possible…unfortunately this highly logical argument has been morphed into repealing regulations because of the complexity which is to say it’s not black or white but grey and there is no use for grey.
getalife
January 17th, 2012
10:49 am
I can sum up this cycle in three words.
willard will lose.
Rafe Hollister
January 17th, 2012
10:50 am
Where were all of you boys who cry wolf, when they dug the Suez and Panama Canals. Had your voices been heard loudly back then, we would still be sailing around the tips of Africa and South America.
TBone
January 17th, 2012
11:12 am
This is the kind of progressively backed crap that will put America on the scrap heap of former SuperPowers. When JFK challenged this nation in the early 1960’s to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade, we did. Now with the myriad of regulatory hoops that must be hurdled we could never do a feat like that. May God help us!
getalife
January 17th, 2012
11:21 am
Kyle,
Due to the fact cons are racist, you might try a MLK thread next year to try to prove them wrong.
At least try.
Thanks.
Kyle Wingfield
January 17th, 2012
11:26 am
getalife: Your grasp of the meaning of “fact” is as solid as your grasp on what “alife” is.
Jefferson
January 17th, 2012
11:32 am
Was that a wet spitball?
getalife
January 17th, 2012
11:50 am
Kyle,
Most blogs do a MLK post on MLK Day but you did not.
That is fact.
Capt. Francesco Shettino
January 17th, 2012
11:54 am
Si, make the Savannah port deeper, much deeper. Mama mia, take it from me you can flip a ship faster than you can say arrivederci Roma.
getalife
January 17th, 2012
12:14 pm
The President’s job council wants to reform tax code, lower corporate taxes and more domestic drilling.
These are gop ideas so you cons won these arguments.
So why the Obama envy?
Is it because he is successful?
Is it because he is not white?
Is it because you are brainwashed to envy him?
Linda
January 17th, 2012
12:20 pm
Disgusted@9:21 PM, Your assessment of the US energy supply is quite different from the Geological Survey report. If you will click on this article, it will debunk all the myths plus more that many people believe. The reality of myth # 3 is that the “US is the 3rd largest oil producer (10) & according to the Congressional Research Service, we have the world’s largest fossil fuel resources (11).” If you click on footnotes #10 & #11 at the bottom of the article, you can read for yourself. Only Russia & Saudi produce more oil than the US. The US has more fossil fuels than anyone else in the world.
http://www.stoptheenergyfreeze.com/myth-vs-reality/
If there are NO or MINIMAL natural resources in the OCS & in Alaska, why do the energy companies want to spend billions exploring there & why would congress & the president prohibit them from doing so?
What happened to the price of gas when Bush lifted the presidential moratorium?
Kyle Wingfield
January 17th, 2012
12:37 pm
No, getalife, no it’s not. But as I’ve said before, you ought to getaclue.
Don
January 17th, 2012
12:44 pm
The transcontinental RR was chartered in 1862, construction started in earnest in 1865 and was completed in May of 1869. Four years to build nearly 2000 miles of RR….by hand. Only 7 years from a rough line on a map to completion.
Now, even simple public works projects can’t get done in less than five. First, we need a study to see scope out the project. That gets bid out. Then, comes the rough engineering, study of alternatives and final scope. Then the EIS work. Then the final engineering. Then the construction. Each phase has to be bid out, reviewed and contracts written and let out.
All of this work is sequential. Almost none of the work gets done in parallel. And, it just clobbers the ROI with the benefits coming on line so long after the money starts to flow out.
The transcontinental RR was really nothing more than a rough line on a map when work started. The engineering, surveying and construction all went on in parallel.
We definitely need to focus on ways to speed up construction of public projects. It’s all about being good stewards of our tax dollars.
Clint
January 17th, 2012
11:57 pm
Kyle, good points, but from what I understand from talking to people familiar with the study, the delay has been caused by the authorizing legislation, which dictated all of the various agencies that had to be included. If we’re looking to place blame for the long process, it starts with Congress plain and simple. I’d be interested in knowing who wrote the original authorizing legislation which included so much inter-agency consultation. Perhaps the authorizing legislation was written like that intentionally?
ODD OWL
January 18th, 2012
1:07 am
The Republicans gallivant around yelling and screaming let the private sector do it… Well the private sector haven’t done schit. The Government is the agency of last resort. The government step in and fill the void where the private sector has failed. The Republicans who are the lap dog of the rich, the elite and their corporate bosses have become a problem in America. If we the people get rid of the Republicans, we can get rid of the problem.
Dave Brindza
January 19th, 2012
5:58 am
excellent post, very informative. I wonder why the other specialists of this sector do not notice this. You should continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a great readers’ base already!